ncloud_mailer_create_template

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only include destructiveHint: false, which doesn't indicate read/write nature. The description clearly states it creates a template (a write operation) and explains that the returned sid can be reused in other tools, giving useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like idempotency or errors, but the core creation behavior is transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the critical legacy warning and alternative pointers, followed by a clear statement of purpose and output usage. It is concise but dense, with no redundant sentences. Could be slightly shorter, but every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a create tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it creates, how to use the result, and the migration context. It doesn't describe the full response format or error behavior, but it adequately informs the agent for correct invocation, especially with the dryRun parameter available in the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 10 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-specific guidance, only mentions the output sid's usage in other tools. Since the schema covers everything, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('mail template') with the API endpoint (POST /template). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ncloud_mailer_update_template, ncloud_mailer_delete_template, and ncloud_mailer_get_template by focusing on creation, and also differentiates from the newer SENS alternatives by explicitly labeling itself as legacy.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit guidance: the tool is only for projects migrated from Cloud Outbound Mailer and only for a limited time, with a clear pointer to the replacement tools ncloud_sens_send_mail / ncloud_sens_list_mail_requests for new mail sending/lookup. This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.